Everyone who drives a gasoline or diesel powered vehicle on the streets in the United States pays taxes that go towards keeping the roads around the country and within your local community in good condition. We pay these taxes at the pump when we buy fuel.

However, one of the side effects to the Obama administration's push to get Americans to buy more fuel-efficient electric or hybrid vehicles is that the amount of money raised in fuel taxes by states is decreasing. The Oregon state legislature is reportedly considering a bill that would require drivers of vehicles getting at least 55 mpg to pay a tax on each mile driven after 2015.

The bill would also give drivers the option of paying a flat tax amount annually. Currently, taxes on fuel within the state of Oregon are 30 cents per gallon.

“Everybody uses the road and if some pay and some don’t then that’s an unfair situation that’s got to be resolved,” said Jim Whitty, manager of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Office of Innovative Partnerships and Alternative Funding.

Oregon isn't the only state considering charging drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles attacks on the miles they drive; Nevada and Washington are also looking at per mile charges. Drivers of electric vehicles in Washington will begin paying an annual fee in March.

Automotive manufacturers and dealers see this proposed per mile tax as a significant hindrance to the mass adoption of hybrid and fully-electric vehicles.

• Close tax loopholes for oil companies. Put the proceeds towards infrastructure.• Regulate costs on fuel refineries. A lot of the cost per gallon to the consumer isn't due to cost of delivery.• Raise taxes on gasoline. Put proceeds towards infrastructure.• Higher gas prices drives people towards fuel efficient vehicles. Part of the taxation on vehicle purchases goes towards (you guessed it) infrastructure.

The idea is to find a balance that impedes our reliance on fossil fuels - because we consume a ridiculous amount of fossil fuels - and pays for our [expected] lifestyle. (Once people become used to a certain lifestyle, they believe they are forever entitled to it regardless of how untenable it may be to sustain.)

In US we often hear that it is individual's right to decide what works for them. And while this is a good slogan, we live in a society and have to first and foremost do what is best for the whole, rather then individual. It does not mean that we suddenly transition to a socialistic society but we can find a good balance where individual's rights are balanced with the needs of a society as a whole. Taxation is one of the best ways that government can use to achieve this. Taxation can be both stick and a carrot. It is up to each individual, which way they choose.We already subsidize small businesses and farming industry, so for these folks who truly need to drive large vehicles, there are plenty of tax deductions. But regular commuters and suburban parents who buy large cars for prestige, out of vanity or because they just like them, there is nothing wrong if they pay a bit more for their right to choose. And if that truck ends up just sitting in a driveway most of the time, there is no penalty as a gas tax only adds up when you drive a lot.

No! You don't get to decide what other people need, want, or can purchase. Claiming you can because "you're looking out for us" is just a feeble attempt to disguise the fact that you're a tyrant.

Punishing some behavior and rewarding other behavior should never be the role of government, unless the punishment is due to unjust force. Said differently, unless I'm harming someone, the government has no right to influence my actions.

It totally baffles me that those who try to use the power of governmental force to dictate their way upon others attempt to do claim the moral high ground when doing so. There's nothing moral about taxing the bajeezus out of someone because you don't like what they're doing.

quote: we live in a society and have to first and foremost do what is best for the whole

That's "reformed Marxism", at best, right there.

Which is fine, that seems to be what the people vote for these days. I'd just make the point that that is not what the nation was founded to be; it was founded and intended to be the total opposite.

I wish liberals would just drop the pretense and cut to the chase: a public debate, followed by a referendum on keeping the current constitution, or a new one with more expansive powers for the state. All this sneaking around and death-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy towards the current constitution is just cowardly.

By the way, ask you average Greek how unlimited government ends. Considering a lot of them voted for parties that'd of made it much worse by leaving the Euro, they might not comprehend what went wrong, but they'll be able to tell you it sucks.

Or your average Spaniard, or anyone in France or Italy that looks nervously at bond markets and praying the politicians don't knock over the house of cards.